The classic critique of Rizal, whose 149th birthday we mark on Saturday, has itself become venerable. Renato Constantino’s “Veneration without Understanding” was the astounding Rizal Day Lecture of 1969, over 40 years ago. In my view, it does not fare as well as any of Rizal’s key writings. But it continues to be a popular read, and is sometimes used to punctuate, or even stop, a discussion. Everything that a genuine nationalist ought to know about Rizal, I can remember a friend saying, is in Constantino.

What, exactly, did Constantino say, in the courageous, cobweb-clearing lecture that perhaps best reflects his approach to history? He says Filipinos who hold Rizal up as the ideal hero do not understand that he was, in truth, a counter-revolutionary—and therefore insufficiently nationalistic. “Rizal repudiated the one act which really synthesized our nationalist aspiration, and yet we consider him a nationalist leader.” That “one act” is the revolution of 1896.

In rereading Constantino’s “Veneration” yet again, however, I found myself struck by the profusion of false choices he presents to the reader (or the shell-shocked member of his original audience). His critique is based, not only on a Marxist reading of history and nationalism (for instance: “The exposure of his weaknesses and limitations will also mean our liberation, for he has, to a certain extent become part of the superstructure that supports present consciousness”) but also, and tellingly, on a rhetoric of false dichotomies.

A Marxist reading of Rizal is not necessarily impossible; E. San Juan Jr. has written incisively on Rizal’s writings from just such a perspective. For instance, in his post-2001 riposte to Constantino entitled “Understanding Rizal without Veneration,” San Juan wrote: “As I have tried to argue in previous essays, Rizal displayed an astute dialectical materialist sensibility. One revealing example of concrete geopolitical analysis is the short piece on Madrid and its milieu excerpted in Palma’s ‘The Pride of the Malay Race’ (pp. 60-62).” (I took a peek at the previously unpublished piece, originally written in French, in the Ozaeta translation; it is an intriguing read.)

But an argument anchored on false choices is not only deceiving; it fosters a new misunderstanding. In 1969 (and again in 1979, when he published the lecture as one chapter in “Dissent and Counter-Consciousness”), Constantino may have been moved by a genuine desire to offer a corrective to the hero-worship of Rizal. But a corrective based on false logic can work only if it itself is based on false consciousness; in other words, if a reader or an auditor did not know any better.

Right at the start, “Veneration” offers a false choice between revolutionary leader and national hero. “In the histories of many nations, the national revolution represents a peak of achievement,” Constantino writes. “It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that almost always the leader of that revolution becomes the principal hero of his people.” He then offers mostly martial examples: Washington, Lenin (writing in 2010, I am tempted to ask, of the Soviet what?), Bolivar, Sun Yat-sen, Mao, Ho Chi Minh. But if we take a closer look at his phrasing, we find that he has in fact qualified his sweeping statement: thus, “many nations,” not all; “almost always,” not always. If he admits exceptions, then his starting assumption that a country’s “principal hero” is the leader that scaled the peak of that revolutionary achievement is not exceptional. In other words, if there are exceptions to this apparent rule, why take Rizal to task for being yet another exception?

It seems to me that the rhetorical objective of this first false choice is to imply that the Philippines, by choosing Rizal as its preeminent hero, is less of a nation. “In our case, our national hero was not the leader of our Revolution. In fact, he repudiated that Revolution.”

Constantino’s main proof for this repudiation is the famous Manifesto of Dec. 15, 1896, which Rizal prepared as part of his legal defense. (It was actually written five days before, Rizal scholar Floro Quibuyen reminds us in “A Nation Aborted.”) It is a controversial read, because as foremost Rizal biographer Leon Ma. Guerrero has noted, apropos of the Manifesto, “There can be no argument that he was against Bonifacio’s Revolution.” But again the nationalist historian offers us a false choice: Either Rizal was for the revolution, or his words “were treasonous in the light of the Filipinos’ struggle against Spain.”

But in fact there was a third alternative. The Judge Advocate General refused to publish the Manifesto, which would surely have been read by the revolutionaries, because Rizal “limits himself to condemning the present rebellious movement as premature and because he considers its success impossible at this time, but suggesting between the lines that the independence dreamed of can be achieved … For Rizal it is a question of opportunity, not of principles or objectives. His manifesto can be condensed into these words: ‘Faced with the proofs of defeat, lay down your arms, my countrymen; I shall lead you to the Promised Land on a later day’.” (Guerrero’s translation)

This reading of Rizal’s statement from the Spanish perspective, which Constantino did not acknowledge or advert to in his lecture, shows the fundamental flaw behind his historical approach. In using “historical forces unleashed by social development” to situate Rizal’s “treason”, he fails to reckon with the actual, life-or-death context in which Rizal wrote. Indeed, he fails to see Rizal the way the revolutionaries themselves, beginning with Bonifacio, saw him. Shouldn’t their understanding serve as the standard for ours?

5 responses to “Column: Renato Constantino’s false choices”

Unfortunately, Constantino appears to be unaware that there are two dominant forms of socialism that arose at the end of the 19th century. Marxism, which most people are familiar with by name, and Fabianism. Fabianism is basically the view that liberation, empowerment comes about through education and knowledge rather than grabbing the nearest bolo and chopping someone’s head off. Although it is unlikely that Rizal was personally familiar with the developing Marxism and Fabianism form of socialism both were certainly ‘in the air’ at the time when he was developing his own ideas and there certainly are parallels in his writings with Fabianism.

I’m not quite sure why a view of Rizal seen through the prism of the philosophy of a failed German economist should be more valid that a Rizal seen through Filipino eyes – and Rizal was certainly seen by Filipinos as a hero before the Americans arrived.

In response to the last comment above: That “Rizal’ was the secret password used by the highest ranking Katipuneros before the 1896 revolution; and that Rizal was made honorary president of the Katipunan without his knowledge would indicate that the veneration began even while Rizal was alive, and certainly with the understanding that Rizal was not necessarily supportive of armed revolution, or of the Katipunan. They understood, but venerated nevertheless.

Rizal is no doubt a hardline revolutionary subversive separatist. This is evinced from his novels which is replete with his ideas about revolution and independence more than his ideas about reforms in both novels. His ideas of reforms and revolutions are not mutually exclusive, Floro Quibuyen says, but one (reforms) is just a tactic to the “broader” and “long-term” political project that is the independence of the country from Spain.

The proper task of the critic

"exposing false appearances of his own society and pointing at the systematic abuse of power; giving expression to his people’s deepest sense of how they ought to live, using the common language which he raises to a new pitch of intensity and argumentative power; reiterating the regulative principles by which one might set things right; and insisting that there are other forms of falseness and other, equally legitimate, hopes and aspirations. Such a critic is bound but never wholly bound to the life he shares with others. He is never uncritical of those in power or of his allies whose similar complaints he often regards as wrongly directed or incompletely stated. He is at once inside and outside, a member apart, a critical patriot, civilly disobedient, committed to a democratic politics that is never democratic enough." - J. Peter Euben

Meta

Blog Stats

Hundreds of thousands of articles will be written this week trying to explain what happened in the 2016 US presidential election. One of the best explanations was written four years ago by television host and cultural commentator, Chris Hayes. In … Continue reading →

Philippine Daily Inquirer, 07.19.2014 THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATIONAL Theater Association’s “Rak of Aegis,” a musical-comedy production about a fictional urban-poor community coping with floods that features the songs of the iconic pop-rock band Aegis, grabbed the lead in the 1st/2nd-quarter citations of the 2014 Gawad Buhay!, the Philstage Awards for the Perform […]

News + Features What’s New Win We Don’t Understand The Donald. Sad! But there are clues if you look hard enough. by Manuel L. Quezon III ILLUSTRATOR Elaine Villanueva (SPOT.ph) The little anyone knows about Trump comes from The Donald himself: He likes to win. He is a winner. He is Master of the Art … Continue reading »